State of Maharashtra, Thru Inspector Exise Department Chikhali vs Dilip Vishvnath Fullare Advocate - Sungat VR — 373/2025
Case under Maharashtra Prohibition Act Section 65 E. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 11th March 2026.
S.C.C. - Sum Case
CNR: MHBU150011172021
Filing Number
958/2021
Filing Date
16-11-2021
Registration No
373/2025
Registration Date
16-11-2021
Court
Civil Court Junior Division , Deulgaonraja
Judge
2-Jt.CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. J.M.F.C.
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
State of Maharashtra, Thru Inspector Exise Department Chikhali
Adv. APP
Respondent(s)
Dilip Vishvnath Fullare Advocate - Sungat VR
Hearing History
Judge: 2-Jt.CIVIL JUDGE JR.DN. J.M.F.C.
Disposed
Arguments
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 04-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 02-01-2026 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 25-11-2025 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
| 30-10-2025 | Statement U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court acquitted the accused Dilip Vishnath Phulare of charges under the Maharashtra Excise Act, 1949, Section 65(E) for illegal possession and sale of 41 bottles of country liquor (180 ml each). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as only one witness was examined, key witnesses including the panchas and investigating officer were not produced, and no chemical analysis report was submitted to establish the seized substance was genuine liquor, rendering the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court acquitted the accused Dilip Vishnath Phulare of charges under the Maharashtra Excise Act, 1949, Section 65(E) for illegal possession and sale of 41 bottles of country liquor (180 ml each). The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, as only one witness was examined, key witnesses including the panchas and investigating officer were not produced, and no chemical analysis report was submitted to establish the seized substance was genuine liquor, rendering the evidence insufficient to sustain the conviction. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts